no one with less than a 2nd at degree should be able to become a teacher, but vordermans 3rd is fine for consulting on the educational policy itself 'cause she's on the telly?

history is a much more useful subject, not when being used to teach children about research, critical thinking, politics, philosphy and analisis, but when reduced to ordered lists of dead people?

children cannot be encouraged to read if we continue to treat literiture as if its meant to be some form of entertainment, or about being "creative". learning to recite classics and poetry (preferably at an age where the language used will be most impenetrable and offputting) is the way forward?

edited for cock-ups
gaaah!

Last edited by ACG on Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

“I’m an unashamed traditionalist when it comes to the curriculum,” Mr Gove said. “Most parents would rather their children had a traditional education, with children sitting in rows, learning the kings and queens of England, the great works of literature, proper mental arithmetic, algebra by the age of 11, modern foreign languages. That’s the best training of the mind and that’s how children will be able to compete.”

It's obviously a Good Thing that kids learn about the history of the country, are encouraged to read, become numerate to a decent level and have some ability in a foreign language. I don't think many people would dispute that. But rote learning of Kings and a few Queens and memorising poetry is hardly the best bloody way to do it. I imagine Gove would be bringing back log tables if he could. There are valid criticisms of the modern curriculum but it's hardly the solution to return to some antiquated system whereby children are told to memorise a certain set of data and certain interpretations of historical events, is it? This whole 'celebrate Britain's past' is all well and good if it means having pride in a shared cultural heritage but if instead it means pretending that the Empire was a universal force for good, Britain has always acted completely altruistically and in the right and nothing bad ever happened until the 1960s, as I suspect it does, it's just indoctrination.

Learning the kings and queens of England is distinctly NOT important. What would be better is to teach them about European history since 1800 and do things which would appeal to young minds.

The reasons for the collpse of Communism, the rise of Hitler or the foundations of the welfare state are immesnely more relevant and important than who the King was in 1672 or the Tudor attitudes toward sailing.

We are the angry mob, we read the papers every day.
We like who we like, we hate who we hate, but we're all so easily swayed.

bluebellnutter wrote:Learning the kings and queens of England is distinctly NOT important. What would be better is to teach them about European history since 1800 and do things which would appeal to young minds.

The reasons for the collpse of Communism, the rise of Hitler or the foundations of the welfare state are immesnely more relevant and important than who the King was in 1672 or the Tudor attitudes toward sailing.

Modern history is important but (and this might be a result of doing nothing but modern history in school from about year 9 to A Level) it's not everything. And it's really fucking dull after you've done nothing but Hitler and 19th-century politics. You need to have some appreciation of the further past as well, unless you want a horribly utilitarian curriculum.

bluebellnutter wrote:Learning the kings and queens of England is distinctly NOT important. What would be better is to teach them about European history since 1800 and do things which would appeal to young minds.

The reasons for the collpse of Communism, the rise of Hitler or the foundations of the welfare state are immesnely more relevant and important than who the King was in 1672 or the Tudor attitudes toward sailing.

Modern history is important but (and this might be a result of doing nothing but modern history in school from about year 9 to A Level) it's not everything. And it's really fucking dull after you've done nothing but Hitler and 19th-century politics. You need to have some appreciation of the further past as well, unless you want a horribly utilitarian curriculum.

Oh undoubtedly, however I think that by the time the important bit comes round it's the time when it's an optional subject and many don't do it, and thus don't learn about it. Therefore, rather than having all the old stuff pre-year 9 and the modern stuff post-year 9 (as it is now), mix them up a bit.

We are the angry mob, we read the papers every day.
We like who we like, we hate who we hate, but we're all so easily swayed.

What annoys me about Gove is the way his entire strategy is targeted towards what he perceives as electorally populist regardless of whether there is any educational sense in it. Take, for instance, his often-repeated promise to get rid of independent appeal panels for permanently excluded children. It's the sort of thing that plays very well with Mail and Telegraph readers, but assumes that headteachers are infallible - which is not something they accept when it comes to, say, banning racist books and nursery rhymes. It also ignores the fact that a disproportionate number of excluded children have identified learning difficulties and it is all too common that children are in essence excluded for being autistic. If a Mailite's child were excluded unjustly, you can just bet they would be screaming for the right to a fair hearing.

The policy doesn't even make any sense from the point of view of schools. Given the fundamental right to a fair hearing - which preceded the dreaded Yuman Rights Act - if pupils don't have access to an independent panel they will have to take contested exclusions to court, which will cost schools and the legal system a hell of a lot more in terms of both time and money. But of course if that happens the Mail and Gove will blame it all on lawyers.

bluebellnutter wrote:Learning the kings and queens of England is distinctly NOT important. What would be better is to teach them about European history since 1800 and do things which would appeal to young minds.

The reasons for the collpse of Communism, the rise of Hitler or the foundations of the welfare state are immesnely more relevant and important than who the King was in 1672 or the Tudor attitudes toward sailing.

Modern history is important but (and this might be a result of doing nothing but modern history in school from about year 9 to A Level) it's not everything. And it's really fucking dull after you've done nothing but Hitler and 19th-century politics. You need to have some appreciation of the further past as well, unless you want a horribly utilitarian curriculum.

Oh undoubtedly, however I think that by the time the important bit comes round it's the time when it's an optional subject and many don't do it, and thus don't learn about it. Therefore, rather than having all the old stuff pre-year 9 and the modern stuff post-year 9 (as it is now), mix them up a bit.

i don't think there is anything wrong with children learning about more anchent history (there is cirtainly value in that). i was personally in a year group that suffered from curriculum arrangements and did ww2 about 4 years in a row. however, what gove is suggesting isn't simply teaching about earlier periods, it's literally just leaning lists, names of kings, dates of battles, never mind what's in the magna carter the important thing is who signed it and when. it's devaluing history, turning it into nothing more than a facet of general knowledge.

but hey, we'll have a generation who really kick arse at pub quiz machines

User mini profile

Listing of Kings and Queens is the kind of thing the Labour government is lambasted for, it's idea of being able to reel off facts without learning anything.

I learnt about the American west (The Indians and the Cowboys to put it simplistically) in year 10 and 11 of history as I did for GCSE and the theory and all that went with it was really really interesting, before that the history I had learnt was dull.

You probably need about 4 weeks with a timeline to learn about the basics then they should implement interesting topics, How about the history of Victorians with the slums attached, Gove may not want to learn about the poor but it needs to be ingrained into every child. You wouldn't get a history lesson on how the Workhouses were awful though as Mr Duncan Smith wants to bring them back.

*sigh*
this actually happened on a much smaller scale in the town a grew up in, the new tory council (in a fit of trying to make a point) scrapped a theatre building project begun by the previous council. all well and good and money saving yes? well, by the time they'd payed off all the contractors, and payed for the foundation work to be taken down and the land restored to it's previous condition it all added up to more than it would have to just finish the theatre.